Join Us on FB

EVENTS

Should U.S. Law Require Church Approval?

On page one of Monday’s Austin American-Statesman, the headline (“House Approves Health Care Bill”) dealt with the passage of the new healthcare reform bill. One issue that was contentious was the way abortion would be handled. Whether you agree with healthcare reform or not, whether you agree with abortion choice or not, this quote, within the article, should send a shiver down your spine:

“A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the order would satisfy the church’s objections.”

I didn’t realize U.S. law needed to even consider church objections. But there you go.

Comments

Its more like listening to their constituents' objections, which is essential for re-election, the main goal of a politician. That being said, that's why increasing the knowledge of the general population is so important in a democracy.

You'll be aware, Tracie, that the Catholic church tried the same nonsense here in the UK. An equality bill was tampered with because equality in the legal sense would mean that Catholic-run adoption agencies would not be allowed to prejudice against gay people.This was seen as an insult to Catholics.

The thing that creeps me out is that I don't question the church's authority to impose regulations such as "no abortion" on its adherents. If people want to be members and abide by those rules, that's their private club, and they run it themselves.I just can't fathom that they don't understand that there is no justification for imposing their internal regulations that apply to their particular members, upon people outside their church.Surely they don't think I, as a non-Catholic, should be expected to adhere to the ordinances of the Catholic Church?What do they care whether or not non-Catholics adhere to their church by-laws?

"I just can't fathom that they don't understand that there is no justification for imposing their internal regulations that apply to their particular members, upon people outside their church."They're not doing this. The legislation is not outlawing abortion, they just don't want to be forced to pay into a program that allows it. The question is, is that sufficient reason to omit it from the bill? I would say not. It would be like a pacifist asking for a tax refund for their share of the bill for a war.

This is religious bullying and it is morally disgusting. Tragically, we have the same problem here in the UK, as Pombolo said. As a former Catholic, I just wished that some politicians would stand up against them sometimes.

Catholic and skepticism, now there are two words you don't see in the same sentence every day.As a non US Citizen I wonder if there are any christian denominations in the US that actually support pro-choice. Do they ever speak out publicly against their fellow Christians?

In our political system any group has a right to make their views heard and use the voters they represent as pressure.It does gall me that the Catholic church wants a say in how tax dollars are spent when they are exempt from paying said taxes.

>They're not doing this. The legislation is not outlawing abortion, they just don't want to be forced to pay into a program that allows it. The question is, is that sufficient reason to omit it from the bill?Then they should respond asking for a percentage exemption–but that isn't what they're doing. They want no funding to go to this, and for that to be part of the bill–so that _I_ can't pay into the fund to help someone who would choose abortion.

@Strangelove There are plenty and they're against abortion because it eliminates future sheeple for their flock. That's why they're against birth control, too. Either way, abortion helps against overpopulation, anyway.

Oh, guys, please don't let those fucktards climb up…Here in my country, the congress members have reunions with the archbishop in order to decide if or not pass a "sensible" law.And by the way, they're planing to force bible lectures in schools.For some weird reason, the catholic church thinks that unless the contrary, they are, by default the owners of a country with enough adherents.

"Then they should respond asking for a percentage exemption–but that isn't what they're doing. They want no funding to go to this, and for that to be part of the bill–so that _I_ can't pay into the fund to help someone who would choose abortion."I just took a look at the House Bill, didn't know that "insurance companies that accept federal subsidies will not be allowed to cover abortion." I was under the impression that the Bill would be the minimum requirements for coverage and anyone who wants additional coverage would be able to purchase it individually. And since it is outlining the minimum requirements for coverage, I doubt that it would be legal to ask for less coverage, which is why I was so sensitive to their concerns, but they've crossed the line in restricting the insurance companies' options… However, there is still hope in the Senate Bill.

Again, why the FUCK is it legal to put anti-abortion laws into the health care? Abortion is legal. We need to either just be done with it and repeal Row vs Wade or suck it up and stop acting like Abortion is still illegal in every single fricking congress debate. We don't want federal money to go to abortions!" Too bad, it's legal. Suck it up. If my tax money inevitably goes to executing minorities in prison there's no reason why you can't suck it up and pay for abortions. I don't get final say in whether I think any execution is valid or not, and neither do they.